How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic

[Poetlister]

It has left me not knowing who among the functionaries can be trusted. There is another issue that I intended to bring to one of them, and now I have no idea who among them I might approach with it. So it has been damaging.

Is it good news that SV no longer has any functionaries in her pocket?

[HRIP7]

When I questioned the propriety of punishing a Wikipedia editor for making off-wiki inquiries into the identity of a Wikipedia editor engaged in off-wiki sexual harassment of her, Thryduulf (T-C-L) said,

I feel an official statement from arbcom is better than individual replies, given the seriousness of your allegation. I have started the process of getting this but it will obviously take a bit of time. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 15:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

A statement of ArbCom's thinking on this point would indeed be interesting. It would clarify how far ArbCom will go in actively and aggressively (i.e. by issuing site-bans) defending the anonymity of Wikipedia contributors who sexually harass women contributors using accounts on other websites.

I've asked on the ArbCom talk page whether a statement from ArbCom on this point will be forthcoming.

[Randy from Boise]

A statement of ArbCom's thinking on this point would indeed be interesting. It would clarify how far ArbCom will go in actively and aggressively (i.e. by issuing site-bans) defending the anonymity of Wikipedia contributors who sexually harass women contributors using accounts on other websites.

I've asked on the ArbCom talk page whether a statement from ArbCom on this point will be forthcoming.

Don't hold your breath.

RfB

[Poetlister]

When I questioned the propriety of punishing a Wikipedia editor for making off-wiki inquiries into the identity of a Wikipedia editor engaged in off-wiki sexual harassment of her, Thryduulf (T-C-L) said,

I feel an official statement from arbcom is better than individual replies, given the seriousness of your allegation. I have started the process of getting this but it will obviously take a bit of time. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 15:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

A statement of ArbCom's thinking on this point would indeed be interesting. It would clarify how far ArbCom will go in actively and aggressively (i.e. by issuing site-bans) defending the anonymity of Wikipedia contributors who sexually harass women contributors using accounts on other websites.

I've asked on the ArbCom talk page whether a statement from ArbCom on this point will be forthcoming.

It's not ArbCom's business what goes on outside Wikipedia (unless it suits their convenience to make it their business, of course). Anonymity is a central tenet of their philosophy (unless it is convenient to ignore that), whereas looking after the welfare of unimportant people is not.

[HRIP7]

It's not ArbCom's business what goes on outside Wikipedia (unless it suits their convenience to make it their business, of course). Anonymity is a central tenet of their philosophy (unless it is convenient to ignore that), whereas looking after the welfare of unimportant people is not.

I would have had a lesser problem with it if they had taken the view that what goes on outside Wikipedia is not their business.
But they made it their business.

Lightbreather's making off-wiki enquiries was a contributory factor in her site-ban; there was a corresponding finding of fact, and the outing issue was mentioned by several arbitrators as a decisive factor in her site-ban.

It's as though they want to aggressively enforce a Wikipedia analogue of the first rule of Fight Club.

It's as though in order to become a Wikipedia editor, you have to undertake that you will never talk in public about another Wikipedia editor as though they were a real person, even if they sexually harass you elsewhere on the internet; you are required to pretend that they are as immaterial as a character in a novel, and their actions both on Wikipedia and elsewhere just come out of the ether, unattributable to any real person.

And if you fail to comply with that, ArbCom will throw you out.
There are shades of Reddit's response to the outing of Violentacrez here.
It didn't make Reddit look good at all:
Do you think the public would view this any differently?

[Moral Hazard]

Tim/Randy doesn’t represent all of Wikipediocracy membership. There is a spirited discussion going on, and many believe that WPO is a place where women can confront these issues in active discussion, and in a way they cannot on Wikipedia. I don’t like what he has to say, but (within the limits of the site’s terms of service, and of common decency), he has a right to say it. You have a right of reply — I hope you use it.

Not even 10% I'd say - I think he probably has more popular support for his views on Wikipedia than here. Although he is taking up rather a lot of the bandwidth here on this particular issue - you can't move in here for his uses of "Friendly Space" this and "Identity Politics" that in disparaging ways. And while everyone has a right to their opinion and everyone else has the right to reply, within the established parameters, at some point it just becomes tedious and repetitive, and certainly when the level of tone deafness reaches a certain point, as I've seen occur these past few days in his interactions with others of a different viewpoint, it arguably becomes a violation of common decency.

The proposition that some middle-class hypomanics are going to intimidate Tim is incredible.
This ain't his first ideological conflict.

[Moral Hazard]

Roger Davies and other arbitrators banned me for discussing Demiurge1000.

In particular, Roger asked me to take ownership of a post in which I wrote, "Regardless of his real-life identity, ..."---where I was trying to steer the conversation away from Demiurge1000's identity! So Arbcom's no-tolerance rule for off-Wiki discussions of degenerates should not surprise anybody.

(Thryduulf was very active defending Demiurge1000 on Wikipedia, when he was a clerk, to Arbcom.)

Despite having all the information we mailed the WMF, English Wikipedia's Arbcom did nothing publicly. As a consequence of Roger Davies's inaction, Demiurge1000 continued to edit and interact with minors, particularly minors with obvious mental or social disabilities, for another year before the WMF site-banned him. (And Wales seems never to have acknowledged anything, rather having claimed that the WMF was concerned deeply about child protection.)

Which was more dangerous? Arbcom protecting Demiurge1000 and letting him run around contacting boys for another year, after all the evidence was in? Or Arbcom protecting a sleeze who posted some doctored pictures of Lightbreather to a pornsite? (Answer: I don't think that Lightbreather was in the physical danger that a strange man could pose to a child.) If Wikipedia won't accept discussions of men pursuing children, how can Wikipedia accept discussions of men sexually harassing women?

[HRIP7]

ArbCom volunteers are simply the wrong body to deal with these matters. (I think many ArbCom members would agree with that.)
It should be up to the Foundation, and I doubt they would have banned Lightbreather for discussing her sexual harassment.

[JapaneseForeigner]

ArbCom volunteers are simply the wrong body to deal with these matters. (I think many ArbCom members would agree with that.)
It should be up to the Foundation, and I doubt they would have banned Lightbreather for discussing her sexual harassment.

She was certainly going to get the GC ban tho, which she personally considered equivalent (per her statements here, and her rejection of the last minute deal - which btw is a fairly glaring omission from the stories).

Beyond that I thought the repeated beating the SPI horse into the ground and some other behaviors may have put her close to the edge of a ban regardless.

When the harassment broke, I thought that was actually potentially a saving grace for her. It might have mitigated enough of the stuff under "harassment causes stress" to let her slip away with just the TBan.

Posting the evidence everywhere (both on and off wiki) repeatedly, after being repeatedly told not to, pushed her back to the ban. Had she only posted it here, I think that still could have been mitigated away, but the repeated on wiki stuff was pure suicide (I guess she felt the bridge was already burned at that point).

On the other other hand, its a bit of a catch 22. Had she not posted the evidence publicly, there would have been no pressure (then or now) to do anything about it, and she would lose a lot of the sympathy vote (including from people like me who are otherwise mostly detractors)

[Randy from Boise]

ArbCom volunteers are simply the wrong body to deal with these matters. (I think many ArbCom members would agree with that.)
It should be up to the Foundation, and I doubt they would have banned Lightbreather for discussing her sexual harassment.

The was certainly going to get the GC ban tho, which she personally considered equivalent (per her sattements here, and her rejection of the last minute deal - which btw is a fairly glaring omission from the stories).

Beyond that I thought the repeated beating the SPI horse into the ground and some other behaviors may have put her close to the edge of a ban regardless.

When the harassment broke, I thought that was actually potentially a saving grace for her. It might have mitigated enough of the stuff under "harassment causes stress" to let her slip away with just the TBan.

Posting the evidence everywhere (both on and off wiki) repeatedly, after being repeatedly told not to, pushed her back to the ban. Had she only posted it here, I think that still could have been mitigated away, but the repeated on wiki stuff was pure suicide (I guess she felt the bridge was already burned at that point).

On the other other hand, its a bit of a catch 22. Had she not posted the evidence publicly, there would have been no pressure (then or now) to do anything about it, and she would lose a lot of the sympathy vote (including from people like me who are otherwise mostly detractors)

+1

[slacker]

LB encountered enough harassment on Wikipedia for her views on civility and gender from the likes of Eric that most people should quite rightly feel sympathy for her, and make appropriate allowances for her behaviour in response. And nobody who knows anything about Wikipedia is taken in by this claim that what she did on gun control warranted a ban - that stuff was not optimal behaviour, sure, but you can quite easily argue based on numerous precedents that even if she wasn't being affected by the almost year long harassment from Eric and co., taken on its own, it was not the sort of thing that would earn anyone a ban if simply taken to AN/I (which, to Wikipedia's eternal shame, has always been more lenient than ARBCOM). But even ARBCOM would not have banned her just on the gun control issues - LB was banned because ARBCOM lacked the nuance and foresight to appreciate that their reading of events was a little bit too white male to make any sense in this Century. Hence, when combined with the off-wiki harassment issue (which was merely a particularly vile extension of what was already happening on wiki), it leads to bad press about Wikipedia's sexism problem, which runs all the way to the top.

[Randy from Boise]

LB encountered enough harassment on Wikipedia for her views on civility and gender from the likes of Eric that most people should quite rightly feel sympathy for her, and make appropriate allowances for her behaviour in response.

And actually the same can be said of Eric, taking shit from Kevin Gorman and Jimmy Wales.

Here's the deal: the point of the exercise is to build an encyclopedia. Who's a net positive? Who's a net negative?

That's what it's all about to "Team Colbert"...

RfB

[Jimbo Jambo]

LB encountered enough harassment on Wikipedia for her views on civility and gender from the likes of Eric that most people should quite rightly feel sympathy for her, and make appropriate allowances for her behaviour in response.

Valid Options
Find a community that fits your beliefs
Adapt your beliefs to fit the community

Invalid Options
Force the community to adapt to your beliefs

So little respect for indigenous culture, it's offensive.

Here's the deal: the point of the exercise is to build an encyclopedia. Who's a net positive? Who's a net negative?

I think the other side disagrees - their point is the process, who can benefit, which marginalized groups can be encouraged and supported. The encyclopedia is just a vehicle.

[Randy from Boise]

Here's the deal: the point of the exercise is to build an encyclopedia. Who's a net positive? Who's a net negative?

I think the other side disagrees - their point is the process, who can benefit, which marginalized groups can be encouraged and supported. The encyclopedia is just a vehicle.

Team Friendly Space still believe in "crowdsourcing" and that with enough contributions from enough diverse humans, all the knowledge of the world, written and oral, can be distilled and preserved. They are positive, upbeat, and very social.

Team Colbert is cold and rational, willing to trade off crassness for capability if the exchange rate is net positive. They tend to be grumpy, individualistic, tightly focused of their subjects, and believers in specialist generation of content.

Of course, there are also no small number of trolls and vapid drone bees who are just playing games.

RfB

[greybeard]

Here's the deal: the point of the exercise is to build an encyclopedia.

No. I'm not being cute here. While that may be the stated goal, Wikipedia is in fact (at best) an intentional social-media-mediated online community. The effort to "build an encyclopedia", such as it is, is a side-effect. Observe the imbalance between edits to actual content pages by the leading community members and their edits to internal discussion pages.

This dichotomy is essential to understanding Wikipedia. If the true goal was to create a credible, reliable, monotonically-improving online reference work, many things would be different.

[Jimbo Jambo]

Here's the deal: the point of the exercise is to build an encyclopedia. Who's a net positive? Who's a net negative?

I think the other side disagrees - their point is the process, who can benefit, which marginalized groups can be encouraged and supported. The encyclopedia is just a vehicle.

Team Friendly Space still believe in "crowdsourcing" and that with enough contributions from enough diverse humans, all the knowledge of the world, written and oral, can be distilled and preserved. They are positive, upbeat, and very social.

Team Colbert is cold and rational, willing to trade off crassness for capability if the exchange rate is net positive. They tend to be grumpy, individualistic, tightly focused of their subjects, and believers in specialist generation of content.

Of course, there are also no small number of trolls and vapid drone bees who are just playing games.

RfB

Eh, I'm not so sure team friendly space's goal is diversity for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia.

Seems like 3 main groups in the friendly-space coalition:
(1) those who'd rather see wikipedia fail than maintain its current level of "misogyny "
(2) those who'd jump onto any ideological bandwagon if it raised their status
(3) useful idiots and non-extremists

I think 1 and 2 combined are bigger than 3.

[Randy from Boise]

Here's the deal: the point of the exercise is to build an encyclopedia.

No. I'm not being cute here. While that may be the stated goal, Wikipedia is in fact (at best) an intentional social-media-mediated online community. The effort to "build an encyclopedia", such as it is, is a side-effect. Observe the imbalance between edits to actual content pages by the leading community members and their edits to internal discussion pages.

This dichotomy is essential to understanding Wikipedia. If the true goal was to create a credible, reliable, monotonically-improving online reference work, many things would be different.

You see 150 or so people; the count of core Very Active Editors is 3300 — 22 times more than that! It's like pointing at an iceberg and declaring they are pointy and white and float on top of water...

The real Wikipedia is happening where you aren't looking.

RfB

[AnimuAvatar]

And some South Korean site here:
http://www.thecatcher.co.kr/news/articl ... dxno=15628

...do we have any lurking Korean speakers here?

I can try to find some from the dark depths from whence I came.

[slacker]

LB encountered enough harassment on Wikipedia for her views on civility and gender from the likes of Eric that most people should quite rightly feel sympathy for her, and make appropriate allowances for her behaviour in response.

Valid Options
Find a community that fits your beliefs
Adapt your beliefs to fit the community

Invalid Options
Force the community to adapt to your beliefs

So little respect for indigenous culture, it's offensive.

Here's the deal: the point of the exercise is to build an encyclopedia. Who's a net positive? Who's a net negative?

I think the other side disagrees - their point is the process, who can benefit, which marginalized groups can be encouraged and supported. The encyclopedia is just a vehicle.

Since this is the thread dedicated to the Atlantic piece, it would seem apt to stick to what can be proven, not the theories of internet randoms. Accordingly, I submit:

-Wikipedia's stated beliefs align with Lightbreather's more than Eric's.
-Wikipedia's stated beliefs hold that the process is a core feature
-In day to day practice, ignoring the special snowflake celebrity cases like Eric, things generally respect the above
-Despite having concluded as far back as 2007 that he neither agreed with a central pillar (WP:CIV) nor was ever likely to get it removed, Eric has toiled away on Wikipedia regardless of the fact he is a constant source of friction and drama because of it

Eric is and always has been the turd in the punchbowl of Wikipedia's desired (and actual) culture, not LB, who simply raised a stink when she realised that Wikipedia's actual culture was falling well short of the brochure (due in no small part because she encountered and then scrapped with the Corbettistas).

[Kumioko]

Eric is and always has been the turd in the punchbowl of Wikipedia's desired (and actual) culture, not LB, who simply raised a stink when she realised that Wikipedia's actual culture was falling well short of the brochure (due in no small part because she encountered and then scrapped with the Corbettistas).

LB was a major disruption to the project who had no desire to interact with others. She basically weaponized gender as a means to make others look like they were persecuting her and anyone that disagreed with her was her enemy. Eric just told her bluntly what he thought of her and dumped fuel on the fire she was building.

[Tarc]

Here's the deal: the point of the exercise is to build an encyclopedia.

No. I'm not being cute here. While that may be the stated goal, Wikipedia is in fact (at best) an intentional social-media-mediated online community. The effort to "build an encyclopedia", such as it is, is a side-effect. Observe the imbalance between edits to actual content pages by the leading community members and their edits to internal discussion pages.

This dichotomy is essential to understanding Wikipedia. If the true goal was to create a credible, reliable, monotonically-improving online reference work, many things would be different.

You see 150 or so people; the count of core Very Active Editors is 3300 — 22 times more than that! It's like pointing at an iceberg and declaring they are pointy and white and float on top of water...

The real Wikipedia is happening where you aren't looking.

RfB

Yes, I'm sure that the editors that tinker away in 18th-century Hungarian water polo are quite well-mannered and harmless, as is their topic area. But in any topic that is also a point of contention in the real-world, that topic only attracts people who want to fight it out on the Wikipedia. No one goes to the Wikipedia to edit the abortion article just out of simple desire to contribute a well-written and sound piece on the topic, they go there to make sure that their preferred narrative is the one that is being represented.

I like the Wikipedia for non-crisis/contentious things, I go there all the time for List of Person of Interest episodes (T-H-L) and such, when catching up on shows. Fans that have created that and related pages do great, normal work, they jsut hop in every week and merrily add what happened in every episode. The crowd-surfing editing model breaks down when people have agendas.

[slacker]

Eric is and always has been the turd in the punchbowl of Wikipedia's desired (and actual) culture, not LB, who simply raised a stink when she realised that Wikipedia's actual culture was falling well short of the brochure (due in no small part because she encountered and then scrapped with the Corbettistas).

LB was a major disruption to the project who had no desire to interact with others. She basically weaponized gender as a means to make others look like they were persecuting her and anyone that disagreed with her was her enemy. Eric just told her bluntly what he thought of her and dumped fuel on the fire she was building.

Again, in the spirit of this being the thread dedicated to an actual story about Wikipedia, it would be helpful if you provided some evidence that journalists could use to take these sort of posts seriously. Because rest assured, based on what I saw 90% of that is just complete nonsense, and it would more closely resemble what happened if you simply swapped LB for Eric and adjusted the pronouns.

[Poetlister]

Here's the deal: the point of the exercise is to build an encyclopedia.

No. I'm not being cute here. While that may be the stated goal, Wikipedia is in fact (at best) an intentional social-media-mediated online community. The effort to "build an encyclopedia", such as it is, is a side-effect. Observe the imbalance between edits to actual content pages by the leading community members and their edits to internal discussion pages.

This dichotomy is essential to understanding Wikipedia. If the true goal was to create a credible, reliable, monotonically-improving online reference work, many things would be different.

I suppose we have to ask, whose goal? No doubt the content producers who are toiling away to ensure that Wikipedia is constantly improving are there to create an encyclopaedia. Maybe many of the admins think the same. But as far as the WMF and many of the most influential editors are concerned, Greybeard is probably right.

[greybeard]

The real Wikipedia is happening where you aren't looking.

On IRC perhaps, though that may now be passé. On sekrit mailing lists, no doubt. In dens of partisan POV-pushers, certainly. But the "real" Wikipedia is only a (pretend) reference work by accident. That they enslave co-opt the labor of some unsuspecting or misguided souls is immaterial.

[JCM]

Eric is and always has been the turd in the punchbowl of Wikipedia's desired (and actual) culture, not LB, who simply raised a stink when she realised that Wikipedia's actual culture was falling well short of the brochure (due in no small part because she encountered and then scrapped with the Corbettistas).

LB was a major disruption to the project who had no desire to interact with others. She basically weaponized gender as a means to make others look like they were persecuting her and anyone that disagreed with her was her enemy. Eric just told her bluntly what he thought of her and dumped fuel on the fire she was building.

Again, in the spirit of this being the thread dedicated to an actual story about Wikipedia, it would be helpful if you provided some evidence that journalists could use to take these sort of posts seriously. Because rest assured, based on what I saw 90% of that is just complete nonsense, and it would more closely resemble what happened if you simply swapped LB for Eric and adjusted the pronouns.

For someone who has only had an account since Monday, and has posted 29 comments to the single thread on the ongoing Eric Corbett thread, about 10% of the total posts to that threat, you do seem to have a remarkable degree of certainty regarding your own beliefs about how things work or should work here.

[Oblia]

LB was a major disruption to the project who had no desire to interact with others. She basically weaponized gender as a means to make others look like they were persecuting her and anyone that disagreed with her was her enemy. Eric just told her bluntly what he thought of her and dumped fuel on the fire she was building

You bought the unsubstantiated accusations of others, Kumi.

LB's haters - notably Mike Searson (T-C-L) - weaponized gender. LB simply expressed increasing disgust with the insults as time went by.

I find the term [assault weapon] offensive and when I hear it outside of a legal context it is a red-flag that the user has no idea what they are talking about and is probably better versed on foot lotion, scented candles and tofu burgers than on firearms.--Mike Searson 17:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"foot lotion, scented candles and tofu burgers"? In other words, not red-blooded, heterosexual men with "manly" interests.

Lightbreather is too emotional or too biased to work with anything firearms related.--Mike Searson 03:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"Too emotional" is a common gendered stab at women.

Lightbreather is a person who Cannot Understand Normal Thought.--Mike Searson 07:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

See it? This was posted on Scalhotrod's page in support of his griping about and hounding of LB.

Certain people with political agendas have placed politically charged articles in this project. Personally, I think this should only be the technical stuff. Reading the political bile some folks write makes me want to whack someone in the head with a shovel. An anti gunner writing a technical article about firearms is about the same as a child rapist writing about how to run a day-care center.--Mike Searson 08:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sexist? Misogynist? How about just plain threatening! Which, as we all know, women thrive on, right?

Searson's actual signature was and still is "--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ" (Molon labe, the battle cry of the modern American "militia"). But the kicker? Even after he was banned from gun-control for attacking Lightbreather and others (follow the link to the AE case for more doozies), he is still officially the "coordinator" of WP:Guns, which I think says a lot about the POV of that project.

[slacker]

Eric is and always has been the turd in the punchbowl of Wikipedia's desired (and actual) culture, not LB, who simply raised a stink when she realised that Wikipedia's actual culture was falling well short of the brochure (due in no small part because she encountered and then scrapped with the Corbettistas).

LB was a major disruption to the project who had no desire to interact with others. She basically weaponized gender as a means to make others look like they were persecuting her and anyone that disagreed with her was her enemy. Eric just told her bluntly what he thought of her and dumped fuel on the fire she was building.

Again, in the spirit of this being the thread dedicated to an actual story about Wikipedia, it would be helpful if you provided some evidence that journalists could use to take these sort of posts seriously. Because rest assured, based on what I saw 90% of that is just complete nonsense, and it would more closely resemble what happened if you simply swapped LB for Eric and adjusted the pronouns.

For someone who has only had an account since Monday, and has posted 29 comments to the single thread on the ongoing Eric Corbett thread, about 10% of the total posts to that threat, you do seem to have a remarkable degree of certainty regarding your own beliefs about how things work or should work here.

Accuracy is important. Or do you disagree? On that note, far be it from me to tell you what to do, but I think the writer of the Atlantic piece at least might be interested in your replies to my post here - viewtopic.php?p=158916#p158916

[JCM]

Eric is and always has been the turd in the punchbowl of Wikipedia's desired (and actual) culture, not LB, who simply raised a stink when she realised that Wikipedia's actual culture was falling well short of the brochure (due in no small part because she encountered and then scrapped with the Corbettistas).

LB was a major disruption to the project who had no desire to interact with others. She basically weaponized gender as a means to make others look like they were persecuting her and anyone that disagreed with her was her enemy. Eric just told her bluntly what he thought of her and dumped fuel on the fire she was building.

Again, in the spirit of this being the thread dedicated to an actual story about Wikipedia, it would be helpful if you provided some evidence that journalists could use to take these sort of posts seriously. Because rest assured, based on what I saw 90% of that is just complete nonsense, and it would more closely resemble what happened if you simply swapped LB for Eric and adjusted the pronouns.

For someone who has only had an account since Monday, and has posted 29 comments to the single thread on the ongoing Eric Corbett thread, about 10% of the total posts to that threat, you do seem to have a remarkable degree of certainty regarding your own beliefs about how things work or should work here.

Accuracy is important. Or do you disagree? On that note, far be it from me to tell you what to do, but I think the writer of the Atlantic piece at least might be interested in your replies to my post here - viewtopic.php?p=158916#p158916

Accuracy is important. So is honesty and straightforwardness. I find your second sentence ridiculously amusing under the circumstances. All I have seen, honestly, is someone who might be thought by some to have a remarkable interest, perhaps in their eyes bordering on pathological obsession, with this topic, but who at the same time, refuses to indicate to anyone on what basis you have acquired this remarkable degree of knowledge which you lay unsupported claims to.

[Oblia]

Lightbreather is a person who Cannot Understand Normal Thought.--Mike Searson 07:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

And here was Scalhotrod's reply:

Understood, but maybe I can get others to appreciate that. The more she complains, the more damning evidence that I find. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 14:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

He rarely presented real evidence. He mostly repeated his opinions, as most LB detractors did. However, in light of this and this I'm going to allow myself to say - to hell with that slimy bastard!

[slacker]

Eric is and always has been the turd in the punchbowl of Wikipedia's desired (and actual) culture, not LB, who simply raised a stink when she realised that Wikipedia's actual culture was falling well short of the brochure (due in no small part because she encountered and then scrapped with the Corbettistas).

LB was a major disruption to the project who had no desire to interact with others. She basically weaponized gender as a means to make others look like they were persecuting her and anyone that disagreed with her was her enemy. Eric just told her bluntly what he thought of her and dumped fuel on the fire she was building.

Again, in the spirit of this being the thread dedicated to an actual story about Wikipedia, it would be helpful if you provided some evidence that journalists could use to take these sort of posts seriously. Because rest assured, based on what I saw 90% of that is just complete nonsense, and it would more closely resemble what happened if you simply swapped LB for Eric and adjusted the pronouns.

For someone who has only had an account since Monday, and has posted 29 comments to the single thread on the ongoing Eric Corbett thread, about 10% of the total posts to that threat, you do seem to have a remarkable degree of certainty regarding your own beliefs about how things work or should work here.

Accuracy is important. Or do you disagree? On that note, far be it from me to tell you what to do, but I think the writer of the Atlantic piece at least might be interested in your replies to my post here - viewtopic.php?p=158916#p158916

Accuracy is important. So is honesty and straightforwardness. I find your second sentence ridiculously amusing under the circumstances. All I have seen, honestly, is someone who might be thought by some to have a remarkable interest, perhaps in their eyes bordering on pathological obsession, with this topic, but who at the same time, refuses to indicate to anyone on what basis you have acquired this remarkable degree of knowledge which you lay unsupported claims to.

Firstly, I've refused nobody - you're the first person to ask why I'm here, and insinuate that there's something wrong or dishonest about signing up to Wikipediocracy to post about this topic. And while I find that just a tiny bit rude, and as ever, the way you express yourself is extremely tortured and borderline unreadable, I'm happy to oblige - I'm a Wikipedia veteran who dislikes Eric Corbett, both the man and the myth, for the reasons most other people hate him too. And before you ask, no, you may not know my Wikipedia account name - I value my privacy and the fact it is at this time stalker-free more than I care about whether or not you think that makes me a bad person. When I saw this Atlantic piece generating a predictable amount of myth spreading about Eric, well, I just had to come here and set the record straight, since I know anyone who is anyone reads this forum for all the juicy gossip.

On that score, to everybody, but specifically Salvio - I hope you pay extremely close attention to the questions I posed here to John about his evidence, since to me, it doesn't seem to stack up. And accuracy is important. Like you, I too am concerned about adherence to the BLP policy, but in my case not for the benefit of Eric, but on behalf of the writer of this piece, who, unlike Eric, does have a real world stake in having lies written about her on the eighth most popular website on the internet. I also don't really like it when critics of Wikipedia in general have to resort to just making shit up to support their views, as has been happening in this case - especially when those very same people have the cheek to be active users of that website, and so have all the knowledge and experience of its inner workings to know exactly when they are telling lies and spreading misinformation.

[John Cook]

There is something strange, Slacker, about how you have suddenly turned up in the last day or so and made many posts about relatively few topics.

[Kumioko]

LB was a major disruption to the project who had no desire to interact with others. She basically weaponized gender as a means to make others look like they were persecuting her and anyone that disagreed with her was her enemy. Eric just told her bluntly what he thought of her and dumped fuel on the fire she was building

You bought the unsubstantiated accusations of others, Kumi.

LB's haters - notably Mike Searson (T-C-L) - weaponized gender. LB simply expressed increasing disgust with the insults as time went by.

I find the term [assault weapon] offensive and when I hear it outside of a legal context it is a red-flag that the user has no idea what they are talking about and is probably better versed on foot lotion, scented candles and tofu burgers than on firearms.--Mike Searson 17:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"foot lotion, scented candles and tofu burgers"? In other words, not red-blooded, heterosexual men with "manly" interests.

Lightbreather is too emotional or too biased to work with anything firearms related.--Mike Searson 03:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"Too emotional" is a common gendered stab at women.

Lightbreather is a person who Cannot Understand Normal Thought.--Mike Searson 07:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

See it? This was posted on Scalhotrod's page in support of his griping about and hounding of LB.

Certain people with political agendas have placed politically charged articles in this project. Personally, I think this should only be the technical stuff. Reading the political bile some folks write makes me want to whack someone in the head with a shovel. An anti gunner writing a technical article about firearms is about the same as a child rapist writing about how to run a day-care center.--Mike Searson 08:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sexist? Misogynist? How about just plain threatening! Which, as we all know, women thrive on, right?

Searson's actual signature was and still is "--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ" (Molon labe, the battle cry of the modern American "militia"). But the kicker? Even after he was banned from gun-control for attacking Lightbreather and others (follow the link to the AE case for more doozies), he is still officially the "coordinator" of WP:Guns, which I think says a lot about the POV of that project.

Ok here goes. Mike said dumb things too and if they are continuing to participate in an area they are topic banned from then that is another example of the admins on ENWP picking and choosing when to enforce policy. Given that there are edits as recent as the last week on this linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ke+Searson[/link], then that is an issue that should be addressed.

Saying someone is too emotional does not indicate gender, not one bit.

Saying someone cannot understand normal thought is also not sexist, but is stupid and a personal attack.

That last quote wasn't sexist either but again was a very stupid and thoughtless thing to say that some admin should have addressed and apparently didn't. I do see HJ mitchell blocked them for a month 10 days later, but it wasn't for those comments.

I am also familiar with LB on and off wiki and have seen statements they posted to the Gender task force mailing list and along with others they didn't want to hear any opinions other than everyone on Wikipedia hates women and everyone that edits is sexist.

Personally, the problem on the project is not one of sexism but one of general civility, a lack of faith and trust and admins not doing what they should be doing and enforcing policy. There definitely should be more women editing, but we also need more editors in general regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Creating quotas and targeted recruiting for certain demographics is not going to help the project. Making it a fun place to edit and a collaborative environment will.

[JCM]

Eric is and always has been the turd in the punchbowl of Wikipedia's desired (and actual) culture, not LB, who simply raised a stink when she realised that Wikipedia's actual culture was falling well short of the brochure (due in no small part because she encountered and then scrapped with the Corbettistas).

LB was a major disruption to the project who had no desire to interact with others. She basically weaponized gender as a means to make others look like they were persecuting her and anyone that disagreed with her was her enemy. Eric just told her bluntly what he thought of her and dumped fuel on the fire she was building.

Again, in the spirit of this being the thread dedicated to an actual story about Wikipedia, it would be helpful if you provided some evidence that journalists could use to take these sort of posts seriously. Because rest assured, based on what I saw 90% of that is just complete nonsense, and it would more closely resemble what happened if you simply swapped LB for Eric and adjusted the pronouns.

For someone who has only had an account since Monday, and has posted 29 comments to the single thread on the ongoing Eric Corbett thread, about 10% of the total posts to that threat, you do seem to have a remarkable degree of certainty regarding your own beliefs about how things work or should work here.

Accuracy is important. Or do you disagree? On that note, far be it from me to tell you what to do, but I think the writer of the Atlantic piece at least might be interested in your replies to my post here - viewtopic.php?p=158916#p158916

Accuracy is important. So is honesty and straightforwardness. I find your second sentence ridiculously amusing under the circumstances. All I have seen, honestly, is someone who might be thought by some to have a remarkable interest, perhaps in their eyes bordering on pathological obsession, with this topic, but who at the same time, refuses to indicate to anyone on what basis you have acquired this remarkable degree of knowledge which you lay unsupported claims to.

Firstly, I've refused nobody - you're the first person to ask why I'm here, and insinuate that there's something wrong or dishonest about signing up to Wikipediocracy to post about this topic. And while I find that just a tiny bit rude, and as ever, the way you express yourself is extremely tortured and borderline unreadable, I'm happy to oblige - I'm a Wikipedia veteran who dislikes Eric Corbett, both the man and the myth, for the reasons most other people hate him too. And before you ask, no, you may not know my Wikipedia account name - I value my privacy and the fact it is at this time stalker-free more than I care about whether or not you think that makes me a bad person. When I saw this Atlantic piece generating a predictable amount of myth spreading about Eric, well, I just had to come here and set the record straight, since I know anyone who is anyone reads this forum for all the juicy gossip.

On that score, to everybody, but specifically Salvio - I hope you pay extremely close attention to the questions I posed here to John about his evidence, since to me, it doesn't seem to stack up. And accuracy is important. Like you, I too am concerned about adherence to the BLP policy, but in my case not for the benefit of Eric, but on behalf of the writer of this piece, who, unlike Eric, does have a real world stake in having lies written about her on the eighth most popular website on the internet. I also don't really like it when critics of Wikipedia in general have to resort to just making shit up to support their views, as has been happening in this case - especially when those very same people have the cheek to be active users of that website, and so have all the knowledge and experience of its inner workings to know exactly when they are telling lies and spreading misinformation.

Allow me to say that most people would think that there is absolutely no reason to believe that someone whose only goal is "to set things straight" would choose to do so here rather than at the ArbCom evidence page, unless, of course, that individual is banned from the site. That is perhaps rather important. And given the frankly hysterical and paranoic nature of your last paragraph, I sincerely think that the combination of that, and your seeking to use this site as a soapbox for yourself, is likely to have more influence on what Salvio and others think than your comments, including your rather incompetent attempt at a a legal threat, by implying the author of the article wouldn't like my comments.

[Zoloft]

"Cannot Understand Normal Thought" - capitalized just that way (I checked) is an immature way of calling someone a cunt.
Just wanted to point that one out.

[greybeard]

There is something strange, Slacker, about how you have suddenly turned up in the last day or so and made many posts about relatively few topics.

There is absolutely nothing strange about it -- virtually every member here originally came with some specific complaint about Wikipedia. The ones who have lasted have broadened their interests over time. To complain about a member here in this regard is unwarranted, and to see the complaint from a member with only 14 posts is ironic.

[greybeard]

Saying someone is too emotional does not indicate gender, not one bit. Saying someone cannot understand normal thought is also not sexist, ....

You see, this is part of the problem -- you're either massively ill-informed or delusional. Yes, calling someone "too emotional" is a classic gender put-down, a dog-whistle to men that the subject of the complaint is a woman, and not up to the lofty intellectual standards that men pretend to. And Zoloft has addressed "Cannot Understand Normal Thought" already. Jeez, get a grip.

The problem on the project is not one of sexism but one of general civility...

No. The problem with an aggressive, pseudonymous, frat-boy culture -- on WP and more broadly on the Internet -- is that it is disproportionately uncomfortable for women to deal with, and when part of that verbal put-down culture is specifically aimed at making women feel stupid, ugly, emotional, or generally unwanted -- it then becomes sexism.

Honestly, I cannot keep up with the wall of words on this topic, but every now and then some piece of inanity like this one just jumps out. A community -- online or not -- is not a first-person shooter game.

[Cla68]

Just in case this wasn't discussed already, but did the person who posted the porn pictures and claim that they were of LightBreather commit a crime? If so, then law enforcement should have been involved. ArbCom or the WMF should have notified the police, then assisted them by providing electronic records on the users in question to help with the investigation.

[greybeard]

Just in case this wasn't discussed already, but did the person who posted the porn pictures and claim that they were of LightBreather commit a crime? If so, then law enforcement should have been involved. ArbCom or the WMF should have notified the police, then assisted them by providing electronic records on the users in question to help with the investigation.

In many jurisdictions, yes (and also probably a tort) -- but not (to the best of my knowledge) a federal crime in the US, and thus difficult to prosecute across state lines. And can you imagine the reaction on Wikipedia if they started pro-actively reporting such things to law enforcement?

[Oblia]

Saying someone is too emotional does not indicate gender, not one bit.

There are generally two things someone means when they say someone is "too emotional" in the way that Mike Searson said it here. One is, This woman is too emotional or This is a woman, so she's emotional, or something along those lines. The other is This man is too emotional - like a woman. The funny thing is, it's obvious from his comments that Mike is one of the most emotional editors out there (or was, I haven't followed him since), BUT apparently he was blind to his own anger, or he thought it was a manly and just and therefore a good or acceptable emotion (for him to have, anyway).

Saying someone cannot understand normal thought is also not sexist, but is stupid and a personal attack.

No, Kumi. Look at it carefully. Cannot Understand Normal Thought.

I am also familiar with LB on and off wiki and have seen statements they posted to the Gender task force mailing list and along with others they didn't want to hear any opinions other than everyone on Wikipedia hates women and everyone that edits is sexist.

Links, please.

Personally, the problem on the project is not one of sexism but one of general civility, a lack of faith and trust and admins not doing what they should be doing and enforcing policy. There definitely should be more women editing, but we also need more editors in general regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Creating quotas and targeted recruiting for certain demographics is not going to help the project. Making it a fun place to edit and a collaborative environment will.

Did LB ask about a sexism board? No, she asked about a civility board. Does LB's Twitter page say, "Woman Wikipedian fed up with the status quo re sexism"? No, it says, "Woman Wikipedian fed up with the status quo re civility." Did LB call Eric Corbett a misogynist? No, though Eric Corbett and others insist that she did.

Did LB call Eric Corbett sexist? I think so, and if she did, she had a right. Calling anyone a cunt is sexist, and further, as the potty-mouthed on WP like to scream, "Wikipedia isn't censored" (which is about content, not behavior, though they always forget that).

[JapaneseForeigner]

Just in case this wasn't discussed already, but did the person who posted the porn pictures and claim that they were of LightBreather commit a crime? If so, then law enforcement should have been involved. ArbCom or the WMF should have notified the police, then assisted them by providing electronic records on the users in question to help with the investigation.

In addition to the 1st amendment and "what is harassment" issues, there would need to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt regarding identity. That bar is certainly passed for wikipedia purposes. I don't know if that bar is passed for legal purposes. Extradition across state lines, convincing a prosecutor this is worth their limited resources etc. All in all I think it would be a non-starter though perhaps technically a crime. Had they been actual pictures of LB, and had they linked to her rl identity, it would make it more likely to be a (prosecutable) crime. Anonymous porn pictures, targeted to an anonymous identity sent by another anonymous identity (with some proof of real identity) - thats a much much weaker claim.

Federal law https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/223 -

makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to abuse, threaten, or harass any specific person; includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet

Could be. but I think tough to get a prosecutor to bite.

Since it is well known that LB hails from Arizona, we can use those laws as a starting point for state laws

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocu ... ocType=ARS

reasonable fear of safety/injury/death

.
probably not.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp ... ocType=ARS

Direct any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act to the person in an electronic communication."

Maybe, but "direct to the person" would be a tough hill to climb for a forum posting that LB had to search for to find.

Also

C - This section does not apply to constitutionally protected speech or activity or to any other activity authorized by law

.

might provide an out. Also, only a class 1 misdemeanor.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02921.htm
"

Anonymously or otherwise contacts, communicates or causes a communication with another person by verbal, electronic, mechanical, telegraphic, telephonic or written means in a manner that harasses. For the purposes of this section, "harassment" means conduct that is directed at a specific person and that would cause a reasonable person to be seriously alarmed, annoyed or harassed and the conduct in fact seriously alarms, annoys or harasses the person.

"

Also only a class 1 misdemeanor, and also lots of constitutional outs.

[slacker]

Allow me to say that most people would think that there is absolutely no reason to believe that someone whose only goal is "to set things straight" would choose to do so here rather than at the ArbCom evidence page, unless, of course, that individual is banned from the site. That is perhaps rather important. And given the frankly hysterical and paranoic nature of your last paragraph, I sincerely think that the combination of that, and your seeking to use this site as a soapbox for yourself, is likely to have more influence on what Salvio and others think than your comments, including your rather incompetent attempt at a a legal threat, by implying the author of the article wouldn't like my comments.

It's your first sentence that is paranoid - the biggest mistake Wikipedia ever made was in automatically assuming the only people who would want to submit to arbcom anonymously (but in public view, to ensure everyone is getting the same information at the same time), are people who are up to no good. So I post my stuff here rather than on Wikipedia because I don't want to suffer retaliatory harassment from Eric's coterie. I'm sure Salvio is a smart guy - if he's reading, I think he's probably already sussed out which of us is on the level and gets his views from careful observation and which is just making shit up. The writer of the Atlantic piece has every right to be angry about what you wrote in your evidence submission, backed by no diffs at all - arguing that her "trashy" article is nothing but harassment and an attempt to scapegoat Eric, in the process containing "flat-out wrong" statements. Nobody denies the last part, but more diligent people have noticed that the subsequent corrections made little difference to whether or not your other accusations stack up, or whether your BLP claims do either. But if you don't feel like explaining that here or on Wikipedia, well, I'm sure Salvio will understand.

[Edit: removed excessive quoting -- greybeard]

[slacker]

I see from your talk page John that you've expanded on the BLP/legal issue a lot, in ways that the author of this piece would no doubt be very angry about. First, your claim they have defamed Eric - is that statement on its own not already a BLP violation? You have no First Amendment rights on Wikipedia John (not your real name I see...."interesting"), so do you think you've taken enough care before writing a claim like that about a living person on Wikipedia? Given that quite obviously this is a claim with a reputational impact on a writer for the Atlantic. You linked to WP:LIBEL in your arb case initial statement, so you know what it says must be done to such statements made on Wikipedia.

There is also still the issue that, by extension, you're claiming that the editor who posted the link to Jimbo's talk page has violated BLP, or at least, this is how policy should view such things. Might you do the courtesy of notifying that editor that you've been tossing around the idea of getting WMF legal involved in whether or not such actions are, or should be, viewed as legally actionable? You'll note that the user in question, Rhododendrites (T-C-L), identifies their real name, and is also an "employee of the Wiki Education Foundation", which the dimwitted might assume is a position which would most certainly suffer reputational damage if it got out that they were facilitating defamation of named Wikipedia editors.

Also, in the general context of your posts on this issue, might you like to wonder with me, just how many real life named Wikipedia editors have been variously accused by Eric, without any source at all, of being dishonest or disreputable and the like. And how many of them might have positions which would be incompatible with such traits? And therefore, should you get anywhere with your proposal to expand/clarify BLP, what the implications might be for Eric in future. It's not uncommon for serial violators of WP:CIVIL to be kept on the site, since that pillar is not considered all that important, but I don't recall many editors who were serial violators of BLP against their fellow editors having a long shelf life. Maybe you might want to run this proposal by Eric first, before putting it before the community or WMF Legal?

[Jimbo Jambo]

Brevity is the soul of wit? Or: at least my shitposts are short?

[Zoloft]

Brevity is the soul of wit? Or: at least my shitposts are short?

You are hereby awarded the 'One Man Band' blarnstar:

[AnimuAvatar]

Wow, did my thread really get this big? It seems like just yesterday when I posted the link and to open this thread up

...

Maybe I'm tired but I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying. Usually I don't mind WORDSWORDSWORDS but for some reason something isn't clicking. Maybe I'll try later. The one before that post however, seems laced with a slightly unpleasant tone.

[thekohser]

"Cannot Understand Normal Thought" - capitalized just that way (I checked) is an immature way of calling someone a cunt.
Just wanted to point that one out.

Could someone alert Wil about this bigotry?

[Sparky]

"Cannot Understand Normal Thought" - capitalized just that way (I checked) is an immature way of calling someone a cunt.
Just wanted to point that one out.

I did not know that. This fulfills my online learning goals for the week. See you next Tuesday.

[slacker]

Carrite is making allegations in various threads about how this story came about. It makes sense to discuss them here, in the thread about the story.

viewtopic.php?p=158449#p158449
viewtopic.php?p=159421#p159421

As far as I can tell, he is using the fact that someone used an open proxy to anonymously link to the story from Meta Wiki's Talk:WikiWomen's User Group page at 19:12 UTC linkhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... d=14237333[/link] on the same day of publication as "absolute positive proof" the subject was fed to the journalist by someone from the group he refers to as the "Friendly Spacers", rather than "generated organically".

Now, personally, for a start I can't see how this is proof of anything of the sort. And secondly, I am also having a problem with the idea that even if the journalist only wrote this piece after they were prompted to cover "Wikipedia's Hostility to Women" by a "Friendly Spacer", that there is anything wrong with that. As well as coming up with their own story ideas, journalists must receive such suggestions all the time - it's down to them to decide if it's a story that is in their reader's interest. 1,800 facebook mentions and 593 tweets suggests it was.

So, unless Carrite has a problem with prompting journalists in general (if that's what happened here at all), if he is alleging that it was not only fed to the journalist as an idea for a story, she was somehow improperly induced to run it, and/or the content was largely written not by her but by the source, then I think he has no proof of that here whatsoever.

[Midsize Jake]

And secondly, I am also having a problem with the idea that even if the journalist only wrote this piece after they were prompted to cover "Wikipedia's Hostility to Women" by a "Friendly Spacer", that there is anything wrong with that.

FWIW, I don't think there's anything wrong with that either, and for me it's "firstly."

So, unless Carrite has a problem with prompting journalists in general (if that's what happened here at all), if he is alleging that it was not only fed to the journalist as an idea for a story, she was somehow improperly induced to run it, and/or the content was largely written not by her but by the source, then I think he has no proof of that here whatsoever.

I believe Mr. Carrite actually does have a problem with people trying to seed news stories he doesn't agree with. We've seen this behavior from him before... However, this is probably due to a deep-seated distrust of the media in general, as opposed to some weird notion that jounalists must always maintain some sort of strict isolation from the public sphere when deciding what to write about. It's actually understandable, since so many media outlets these days are openly biased, at least politically - I don't think he blames the people trying to seed the stories so much as he blames the media outlets themselves for gullibility and poor fact-checking. (And to be fair, there was some poor fact-checking going on in this case, such as the initial assertion that Mr. Corbett was an admin, for example.)

[Oblia]

Carrite (T-C-L) (Randy from Boise here) suggested that secretive posting news of the Atlantic story to the WikiWomen's Users Group could only be part of a conspiracy because "many people of both genders have posted previously to that page without trouble."
So, has the group ever been harassed? Here's a post that's been deleted since the Atlantic story was was posted.

No more harassment of women!!! Ban those mean and vulgar editor d !!! No more misogyny !!!

Interesting observation: The IP address that posted the link to the story was blocked. However, the quote above was simply reverted - and the IP address that made it was not blocked.